User talk:Thepointofit

May 2015
Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I noticed that you recently removed some content from A Letter Concerning Toleration with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 14:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thepointofit, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Thepointofit! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 22:02, Monday, May 25, 2015 (UTC)

Notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,--Britannicus (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Your recent editing history at A Letter Concerning Toleration shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies
With regard to the issues raised at Talk:A Letter Concerning Toleration, please read Identifying reliable sources and No original research - these are the policies in question, which clearly and unequivocally establish the principles behind determining appropriate article content, and between them explain why contributors' personal opinions regarding the validity of the conclusions reached in scholarly works are of no relevance to article content. These policies are cornerstones of Wikipedia, and aren't open to negotiation on article talk pages. That is how Wikipedia works, and if you wish to continue contributing, you will have to accept that - our patience is not unlimited, and new contributors who insist that the truth as they see it must override long-established policy run the risk of being blocked from editing. And as a word of advice, regardless of what arguments you are putting forward regarding content (policy-compliant or otherwise), making derogatory remarks about the authors of sources being cited and making fanciful accusations of 'defamation' is unlikely to achieve anything beyond making your case look weaker. If you can find sources supporting your viewpoint, cite them in the discussion - and if you can't you will have to accept that the article will reflect the sources already cited, and your efforts to argue against them will have to be taken elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a platform for righting great wrongs, and nor is it a platform for the promotion of contributors personal views. It is an encyclopaedia - a tertiary source reflecting (as far as we are able) the consensus of current scholarly knowledge. Your argument seems to be with the scholars, not with us - and accordingly, it doesn't belong here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply: Hi Andy, I have not presented my personal opinions I have only restated what John Locke has said himself. Thepointofit (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have taken a screen shot of your warning. Thanks for pointing out what kind of platform Wikipedia is. Perhaps Wikipedia could use the following as a banner: "We are not a platform for righting great wrongs." Thepointofit (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with Wikipedia. I have problem with Britannicus edit which originally was not sourced, and is inaccurate. If John Locke was tolerant of Catholics as his own Letter seems to suggest than Britannicus edit is defamatory.


 * Ok, I give up. I have tried repeatedly to explain to you that your personal interpretation of Locke's letter is of no consequence to Wikipedia article content - if you chose to ignore my advice, and get yourself blocked (which will almost certainly be the result if you continue with this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude) it will be your own fault entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even more serious that the IDHT behavior that Andy the Grump just pointed out to you is your past edit warring to get your preferred interpretation into the article. In one of my edit summaries, I've pointed you to the policy (which is also linked just above), which is very clear.  If you continue to break it, it's almost inevitable that you will be blocked from editing by an admin.  I see that you tried a variation on your previous text, but -- as I pointed out -- you need to get a WP:CONSENSUS for that new language on the talk page, you cannot simply assume that a reformulation of the same basic content is going to solve the problem.  If you can't get other editors to agree with you, and they have Wikipedia policies supporting their position, while you do not, the chances of your changing the article are nil.Please continue to engage in discussion on the talk page, and provide evidence in support of your position, in the form of specific references to scholars who support your position.  If there is disagreement between scholars on this point, our article should reflect that, but within the limits set by WP:WEIGHT -- that is, if the vast majority of scholars say one thing, but a few say something different, the most you're going to be able to get is a mention on the order of "a few scholars disagree with this interpretation."  Because we are an encyclopedia written for the most part by non-experts, we have to follow what the majority of experts say; "fringe" views can be mentioned as existing, but will not necessarily be given the same value. BMK (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Response to BMK: First, please read the Letter by John Locke and note how Mr. Locke's own words refute the claims by Britannicus's scholars. Second, Britannicus's scholars are the fringe. Just a very vocal fringe. Britannicus has merely presented their views as mainstream. How do I prove this: because none of them are hundred percent certain of John Locke's view on Catholicism. If they were there wouldn't even be this question. These scholars would have good evidence. The good scholars admit their uncertainity. Third, note how John Locke identifies the problem with consensus (he should know since he was big on the idea of consent), which is that each group forms their own consensus. I am sure if I had the time to find a bunch of Catholic scholars they would all argue that John Locke was tolerant of Catholics. Even one of Britannicus's scholars alludes to this problem by expressing their amazement that some Catholics actually agreed with them that John Locke was actually promoting intolerance toward Catholics. So, in short, fringe often depends on the group you belong to! I would rather heed John Locke's advice and try to be more inclusive and more tolerant!!! ;) lol.. I hope Wikipedia decides to be more inclusive and more tolerant.   I have often noted that Wikipedia does. So let's pray that they continue to do so. Thepointofit (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Response

First of all, I didn't even know what "edit warring" was until yesterday! Anyway, I perfectly understand the constraints you're under. Your policies seem reasonable (at least the ones I have been made aware of). However, what will really be interesting is to see how you interpret your policies and how you behave. I do believe that a person's own words - especially someone as notable as John Locke - should be allowed to speak for themselves and should override what any other scholar may wish to say about him. If John Locke says the state should tolerate Catholic religious practices I don't think it accurate that some should say that John Locke believes the Roman Catholic Church can not be tolerated: "The Roman Catholic Church can not be tolerated either, according to Locke, because 'all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince'. If this Church were tolerated, a magistrate would have to abide by the settling of a 'foreign jurisdiction' in his own country and see its followers 'listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government'"  I suggest Britannicus's comments should be changed to reflect what one of his scholars John Marshall said:


 * The combination of Locke’s comments in theLetter suggest that during composition of the Letter in winter 1685, Locke was once again struggling over how to discriminate between the series of associated political principles which for him made Catholics intolerable, and the religious worship and other religious beliefs of Catholic which deserved toleration. It seems probable that in writing the Letter Locke thought that at least some Catholics in England and the Netherlands were politically as well as religiously tolerable, as they did not hold that faith did not have to be kept with heretics, nor that excommunicated kings were deposed, and were themselves tolerant, and yet at the same time thought that very many Catholics, especially but not merely Jesuits, were indeed intolerable, and wishes to register both of these propositions in the Letter."—John Marshall, John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 690-693..

Even that quote seems a little skewed because I don't think Locke was the kind of person to hate individuals. I think in his Letter he makes it clear that it is the teaching of intolerance that bugs him, and not the individuals who are subjected and perhaps even ignorant of that teaching. In fact, Locke even argued that people should have the liberty to change their mind or religious belief, so how could he be against an entire faith????? (I can't believe I have to even point this out. This is ridiculous!!!)  I feel sorry for Britannicus and the fact he has been brainwashed by the opinions of other human beings. I really hope someone and Wikipedia will have the clarity to see through the intellectual bullying that is going on here.

Thepointofit (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Even that quote above seems a little skewed because I don't think Locke was the kind of person to hate individuals. I think in his Letter he makes it clear that it is the teaching of intolerance that bugs him, and not the individuals who are subjected and perhaps even ignorant of that teaching. In fact, Locke even argued that people should have the liberty to change their mind or religious belief, so how could he be against an entire faith????? (I can't believe I have to even point this out. This is ridiculous!!!)  I feel sorry for Britannicus and the fact he has been brainwashed by the opinions of other human beings. I really hope someone and Wikipedia will have the clarity to see through the intellectual bullying that is going on here. Thepointofit (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have to join Andy the Grump in writing you off as a lost cause. You simply refuse to understand that my interpretation of the letter, one way or the other, is completely and totally meaningless as far as Wikipedia is concerned.  It's what the scholars who are experts say that matters, and until you can provide citations equal to or better than those provided by Brittanicus, by scholars whose credentials are as least as good, your interpretation is simply not going to go into the article, period, no matter what argument you care to make in support of it.  This is not a debating society, we don't really care what you think, or I think, or Brittancus thinks, or what Andy the Grump thinks.  We have procedures in place, they've worked well in insuring that our articles are unbiased, and we will continue to stand by them. You're wasting your time, and ours. BMK (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

--

BMK - You and Andy are not the only people in the world or readers of Wiki. You can pretend you are taking the "high" moral road. But we know that you're not. You're just be lazy and simplistic and biased. You're ignoring the scholar John Locke's own words and even some of the other scholars. Britannicus needs to prove his point. One of Wiki's policy is that assertions should not be presented as fact. Britannicus (and his scholars) has done just that.

I have never met a group of people so willing to put their own heads in the sand and to allow poorly and non-subtle assertions be made about a person (John Locke) with out even acknowledging what the person said about his own views. I guess being one of the most eloquent writers in the English language doesn't guarantee you that a bunch of yahoos will not misunderstand you.

Who are you anyway? What authority do you have?

Also, I am not a cause, I am a human being. Thepointofit (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Andy, I have read your thoughts on free speech so I think I understand where you are coming from!! (Imagine me clicking my heels together and saluting you!!) Thepointofit (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Please grump on someone else!!! Thepointofit (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined
The A Letter Concerning Toleration arbitration case request has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 17:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD
Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, BMK (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To amplify a bit, take it easy. I am blissfully ignorant about the Lockean points upon which you are disputing, but you seem to be attributing ignorance and perhaps even malice to your fellow editors. For all I know you may be right about at least some of them, but we seldom win anything in Wikipedia by pointing out the shortcomings of our fellows. Relax, and build up a good reputation by editing on other topics and showing you can work and play well with others. Reputation makes power, and acting unpleasantly (even towards unpleasant others) makes a bad reputation. Editors who get a bad reputation generally rage powerlessly for a while about how right they are, then give up in disgust. You of course can do that, sooner or later, or you can make a try at building up your power. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim, I am not sure if your comment is directed to me or BMK. If it is directed to me I will say thank-you because it is friendly and probably good advice for everyone.  If you're interested I responded to BMK's comments on his talk page - Hijacking another editor  Thepointofit (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Jim, I thought your comment was reasonable but user BMK seems to think otherwise. He gives another warning about edit warring after he initiated it. I am not so concerned with power and persuasion as truth. Too bad, BMK is not as reasonable as you. I suspected the malice and then ignorance of the other editors at the Letter Concerning Toleraion page but then realized they were just bullies. Bullies tend to be attracted to power. Thepointofit (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I would be surprised if your approach were to achieve its goal. However, surprises are not rare, including events that surprised me because I had misunderstood the goal. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jim, the line below mentioning "taunts" was meant for BMK. I posted it in the wrong section. By the way, when I first signed into Wikipedia - I was just trying to correct the mistakes I saw. I had no idea how Wikipedia works or the sensitvity of other editors. I definitely wasn't trying to win votes, or power, or influence. Generally, I follow the policy that truth is the most persuasive argument no matter how it is stated. Other people do not share this view at first, but I have found that this policy of following the truth is irrefutable and inevitable. Anyhow, thanks for the heads up about Wikipedia and your fellow users/editors. And although goals do change and help to determine the truth we perceive, I hope that continuing to try to follow truth (and the goals I am aware of) will not lose me the support of fellow editors and that my desire to defend myself against rash accusations is a tolerable and understandable response to such actions. Thepointofit (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I`ll ignore your other taunts and put downs about trying to right wrongs, so hopefully we can bring this little episode to an end.
 * The line above was meant for BMK - posted in wrong section.

Yeah, we have to sign everything and check everything so all will be clear. This dictum came to mind yesterday when I violated it. Hurrying, I mistaught a student at Brooklyn Public Library. I encouraged her to insert a detail in the Weeksville article that she remembered from a lecture. Small mistake. Bigger mistake, I said it was okay to cite a relevant book by the lecturer, even though at the moment we couldn't find that particular fact in that particular book. She was flying pretty well, and I wanted to get to other newbies who were fluttering helplessly. Fortunately, the matter nagged at me at home so, rather than answer you, I checked it with a proper Web search. Oogh! Her writing a wrong, minor fact was a minor error. The major error was that, due to haste, I encouraged her to take the lazy way out. Fortunately, she's very smart, and my thoughtlessness will probably not make her a crippled Wikipedian forever.

Following truth, oddly enough, can sometimes lead us astray. Several years ago, not having read WP:TRUTH, I got into big, useless dispute over the Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The small lessons I learned were, check and compare several refs before restoring a deleted fact, and be ready for a long discussion anyway. Big lesson? Treat other editors respectfully, as though they were kind, smart and friendly, even when they are clearly stupid, cruel and arrogant. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jim, I can understand why verifying and sourcing would be important to an encyclopedia. That makes sense to me.  However, I think the real policy is truth and verifiability, and not truth or verifiability as some people might think.  I don't think Wiki wants to be a place where everything is sourced but out of context and presented in a misleading way.  Indeed, I am sure Wiki has policies about this as well. Following one policy in isolation to all other policies will probably produce a bad result - and I am sure that there is a policy saying just this!! Thanks for sharing your experience, I think I can relate to your lesson.  Have a good day.  Thepointofit (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Verifiability is life's breath for Wikipedia, but there's more to life than just breathing. This morning an unsuccessful search led me to a wrong but interesting picture, File:The Latourette House, Bergen Point, New Jersey.jpg which is being used in a local geography article. Alas, the caption in the article has an error, identifying a person as being born there, who actually lived and died before the hotel was built. I found a contrary and more reliable source and tried correcting the caption but got my citation format wrong. Formats have become more important in the past year, so I put the link in inline form in the picture's Commons description, where format discipline leaves more slack. The minor factual error will remain until I or someone else can figure out the correct citation format, probably in another day or two. It ain't easy when we try to get things right, but a poorly applied correction is unproductive, sometimes even disruptive to efforts of other editors. And yes, there are many Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and even more customs and precedents. When conflicts arise, it is usually profitable to relax, lean back comfortably, and do much more reading than writing. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on A Letter Concerning Toleration. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BMK (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * BMK, you`re really annoying. Please stop harrassing me.  You`re just proving that you`re a bully and a poor sport. Thepointofit (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you find it "annoying" to be asked to follow the same rules that everyone else has to follow, rules such as WP:No original research and WP:verification, and those that require that you not misrepresent what sources say. You are clearly here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and are WP:NOTHERE to contribute to the encyclopedia that teh rest of us are writing. Sooner or later, with the way you're behaving, you're going to be blocked from editing, it's inevitable. BMK (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

BMK, I provided the support for the reference on the talk page. So you should be satisfied now. The quote from John Marshall was on the talk page when you made your request for support. It is now on the talk page a second time. I figured when you accused me of ``hijacking`` a reference, you were aware of the reference!! I apologize for that assumption. Thepointofit (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)